The important point is that the proclamation didn’t just apply to places like Alabama. It stated it applied to people who lived in Alabama. So this meant if you were a slave owner in Alabama, your slaves were now free - even if they weren’t in Alabama.
It would be the equivalent of the United States confiscating all the property that belongs to the North Korean government. The main effect would be to confiscate North Korean assets that are in the United States not North Korean assets that are in North Korea.
…*the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,
…in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States*;
The slaves weren’t rebelling against the U.S.. It doesn’t appear that Lincoln is referring to the slaves in or escaped from any CSA State.
…the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.
If any CSA State returned to the Union by Jan 1st, they could keep their slaves.
Unfortunately, but only for the sake of this discussion, the Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court so it’s legal standing is still in question. Lincoln didn’t issue an Executive Order which would have included the slave and non-slave States in the Union. Instead, the Commander-in-Chief gave the States in rebellion a chance to return to the Union and keep their slaves OR the CIC would suspend civil law in CSA States and their slaves would be freed under Union Army control (when the Union Army arrived).
“IF” the Union Army never arrived or if the Union had quit fighting/sued for peace or the CSA had won the war, the slaves would not have been free under Lincoln’s proclamation. Not in the South, not in northern slave States, and Ohio would still be expected to return runaway slaves even though the 1802 Ohio Constitution had outlawed slavery.
Lincoln’s proclamation didn’t apply to the slave States still in the Union, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware. Escaped slaves from Kentucky found in Ohio would still have to be returned to Kentucky under the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act as passed by the U.S. Congress. After hostilities ceased, assuming the Union won, Georgia could argue that Lincoln’s war powers edicts no longer applied but the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act did. If the South won, Georgia would have needed a foreign power treaty with the North that allowed the return of escaped slaves.
That’s why it was important to pass a 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. That act rendered the other laws and conditions moot.
(Interesting sidenote - the previous attempt to create a 13th Amendment, the 1861 Corwin Amendment, would have legallized slavery if ratified.)
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
Doorhinge, there’s no really much point in arguing about how the Emancipation Proclamation could have been interpreted. I’m telling you the way it was interpreted back in 1863.
Another interesting note - the Corwin Amendment proposal didn’t have a deadline. In theory, it would still be possible to ratify it. And it’s not completely a theoretical issue - a Texas State Representative introduced a resolution calling for the Amendment’s ratification in 1963.
According to Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward (a man who should know what he was talking about), “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
The reason the 13th Amendment was required was because the EP was so limited in it’s scope. Yes, some escaped slaves were “free to leave” Union Army protection at midnight but free to do what? Escaped slaves were free to remain within the protection of the Union Army. They would actually be free if they entered Canada. They were still considered escaped slaves in CSA States. In northern States, they were still subject to the legal morass that had been created in each State and the Federal government in the vain hope of keeping the Union together.
All slaves were free when the 13th Amendment was ratified and slavery outlawed.
Lincoln’s proclamation wasn’t the first time the Union attempted to use the freeing of CSA slaves as a weapon of war.
*In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion, arguing that emancipation would ruin the rebel economy. In July 1862 Congress passed, and Lincoln signed, the “Second Confiscation Act.” It liberated the slaves held by rebels. It provided:
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court. …
SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found or being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves*.
I never said the Emancipation Proclamation freed every slave. The point I made was that the Emancipation did free some slaves on the day it went into force.
I’m not sure that this would let the South win the war. It PROBABLY would let the Army of Northern Virginia win the Battle of Gettysburg, but they would still face the problem that the Army of the Potomac would be sitting down in Maryland on the Pipe Creek line (which was just as strong if not stronger than Cemetery Ridge) with 5 of 7 Corps in good shape. (II, III, V, VI, XII weren’t really involved in Day 1 of Gettysburg.)
So, Lee probably dallies in Gettysburg for 2 days awaiting Stuart, while Meade withdraws to the position he originally wanted to fight from. Lee probably does a bit more damage to Pennsylvania, but has to withdraw because he really doesn’t have enough forces to protect both his lines of communication and face the Meade.
And with far fewer casualties, Meade might be willing to send Hancock or Sedgewick off toward Harpers Ferry to cut that LOC - resulting in both armies winding back up on the Rappahanock sometime in August, 1863.
Plus, that wouldn’t stop the real CSA disaster of July 1863, which is Grant’s seizure of Vicksburg…
I understand what you’re saying. That is the current understanding of the Emancipation Proclamation but from a practical standpoint, the EP was only enforceable under the threat of the use of the Minie ball.
The point I’m making is that unless the slaves freed under the EP were escorted by the U.S. military to another country that had outlawed slavery, such as Canada, the slaves weren’t truely free as they would eventually be under the ratified 13th Amendment. The 13th overrode existing civilian laws. CSA and USA State and Federal civilian laws (not military law/regulation) still existed, and were enforceable, to deal with slaves, escaped slaves, former slaves, ex-slaves, etc.
In short, any slave freed under the EP, and not under U.S. Army or Navy protection, were still subject to the various slave laws that existed at that time.
I don’t know why you keep trying to argue this point. What’s the point in claiming that a person is only legally free if he lives someplace where he’s legally free? That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?
If not, then I’d argue the 13th Amendment didn’t really free the slaves. It only freed American slaves who lived in America. Slavery was still legal in Brazil and if those ex-slaves had somehow traveled to Brazil, they might have become slaves again. So their freedom was contingent on them staying out of Brazil - which is no more ridiculous a point than saying that the freedom of the slaves freed by the Emancipation Proclamation was contigent on them staying out of the Confederacy.
I think it’s pretty obvious that slaves who were freed by the EP on Jan 1st, 1863 required armed Union troops to enforce that freedom. It’s obvious that the “former” slaves weren’t free from civil State and Federal laws. Their freedom, such as it was, didn’t extend beyond Union Army/Navy controlled territory. It’s obvious that the EP didn’t override northern slave or non-slave laws. It’s obvious that the EP didn’t override U.S. federal slave laws. Just as it’s obvious that slaves were still considered slaves in the CSA.
On the other hand, the 13th Amendment removed all doubts and present and future legal impediments and questions. Slavery was no longer permitted anywhere in the U.S.A. (unless you had been convicted of a crime but then it’s called “involuntary servitude”).
I’m still not sure what point it is you’re trying to make. An ex-slave’s freedom extended only in “Union Army/Navy controlled territory” only to the extent that you considered the entire United States to be Union Army/Navy controlled territory.
If a fugitive slave had been living in a military camp and he was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, then he was free. He didn’t require any special protection to stay free from that point on. He could live anywhere he wanted to outside of the seceding southern states. He could live in a free state like Ohio or Maine or California, where there were no slaves. Or he could even live in Kentucky or Maryland or Missouri, where slavery was still legal. The point was that he was no longer legally a slave under American law.
The Union Army authority did not extend to northern States except in limited areas where battles were being fought and where military camps existed. Battle sites changed constantly taking any Union Army authority over civilians with them.
Northern States civil authority and civil laws controlled northern States. CIC Lincoln did not change civil laws in the North by issuing the EP. The Federal Fugitive Slave Law still existed and slave catchers still operated legally within State laws.
If, as you say, “He (slaves) didn’t require any special protection to stay free from that point on”, then there would have been no reason to create, pass and ratify the 13th Amendment. According to your theory, on Jan 1st 1863, slaves were no longer subject to existing State and Federal slave laws.
How was that possible if CIC Lincoln didn’t change civil law?
This post is so full of fail. Are you even aware of the realities of Lincoln’s stance on slavery in the first place?
Do you also think white people stole blacks from Africa?
Doorhinge said it best and didn’t have to mention anything direct about slavery - they could have made this a legislation issue and not a military one.
Add to these suggestions, not seizing federal arsenals and the South might well have been able to avoid a war it couldn’t win. A crash industrialization program to buy time would also have been a good idea.
Of course, making these proposals to Southern leaders of the period would probably have gotten you tarred and feathered, committed to a mental asylum, lynched, or all three.
Most northern states didn’t have slave laws so nobody could be enslaved due to the laws of these states. And the Fugitive Slave Law only applied to fugitive slaves. That was the point of the Emancipation Proclamation - it said these people were free and no longer fugitive slaves.
And for the third or fourth time, I’ll remind you I’ve never said the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves in the country. The Thirteenth Amendment was necesary to free the slaves who hadn’t been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.
While many northern States didn’t allow slavery, four “were” considered slave States. Every State had laws pertaining to slaves and slavery. The original 13 colonies had laws pertaining to slavery as did every State that had joined the U.S.A.. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t change any northern State laws.
Over the decades, Congress had passed many slavery related bills into law. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Law was only one of them. Many were passed to protect slavery and many were passed to keep the Union together but they were slavery related. The EP didn’t change any civil federal laws, either.
The July 1862 “Second Confiscation Act” passed by Congress and signed by Lincoln liberated the slaves held by rebels and could, if convicted, imprision rebels for up to ten years and fine slave-holding rebels up to $10,000.
Certainly sounds like slaves were freed in 1862. Except in the northern slave States which weren’t in rebellion of course. I’d like to think that most people are aware that, at that point in time, the CSA didn’t care what laws the U.S. Congress passed.
CIC Lincoln’s EP was a military order issued to the Union’s military. Slaves were freed in territory controlled by the Union Army. Slaves under protection of the Union Army were free to leave that protection but more importantly from a military standpoint, freed slaves could join the Union Army. CIC Lincoln’s EP would end up adding almost 200,000 soldiers to the Union Army.
CIC Lincoln military proclamation didn’t change any civil northern laws.
Of course I would not help traitorous slavers win a war.
If forced to, though… Look, you’ve got to get past the eastern theatre. The Union won the war in the West. If you want to save the Confederacy, you have to stop the succession of unmitigated disasters that befell them there.
How do you imagine these laws worked? Let’s say it’s 1863 and there’s a slave who escaped from Mississippi and is now living in Brooklyn. Or even Baltimore if you want to make it a slave state. The Emancipation Proclamation declares he’s free because his owner is in a rebel state. But he doesn’t have any military protection.
Do you think somebody can just walk up to this person and declare he owns him? That basically any white person could claim any black person they see as their slave? Because it didn’t work like that. You couldn’t just turn a free black person into a slave. Not even in a state where some black people were slaves.